Archu Karandikar Tilak College

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ MRS. ARCHANA VEDEYAR & DR.
SMITA PHATAK (4412-4432)
EFFECTIVENESS OF A PROGRAM TO AWAKEN EMPATHY IN ADOLESCENTS
Mrs. Archana Vadeyar1 & Smita Phatak2, Ph. D.

1
M. Sc. M. Ed, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth
2
Tilak College of Education
Abstract
Empathetic behaviour in youth, can be beneficial for the youth as well as our nation and the world.
Davis (1983) views empathy as, a multidimensional phenomenon including four subscales-perspective
taking, fantasy, empathic concern and personal distress. The purpose of present study was to find the
effectiveness of the program on the empathy level of Std. XI students. A sample of 70 students was
randomly selected to undergo the community service program. Two unmatched group pre-test and
post-test design usingDavis' Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, 1980) were used. Findings
revealed a significant difference between means, of Empathic Concern, Perspective taking and
Personal distress.This indicates that the Program had a positive impact on the Empathy level in terms
of,Perspective taking and Personal distress and not on Empathic Concern. More Research is needed
needs to be done by incorporating service programs in the regular schedule of adolescents between
14-20 years and study the effectiveness on their empathy and social responsibility level.
Keywords: Effectiveness, Awaken, Adolescents, Empathy
R4Z Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com
INTRODUCTION
Youth form a major percentage of todays population of India. To realize our dream of a
peaceful and caring world in future, we need to inculcate proper values and divert youth
energy to positive action. This is possible, by engaging the youth in community service, to
awaken the dormant empathy in them. Empathetic behaviour in youth, can be beneficial for
the youth as well as our nation and the world.
BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Education
Education helps children to adjust and adapt to their socio-environmental condition, to
cooperate with each other by broadening vision, sharing hardship for the upliftment of
society. A society is composed of individuals and when the ideas of individuals change, the
society is bound to change. (Kumar and Ahmad, 2015)
FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4412

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ MRS. ARCHANA VEDEYAR & DR. SMITA PHATAK (4412-4432)
Adolescence
Erikson's Psychosocial Stages proposed that, adolescents build on all earlier experiences to
develop a sense of self-identity. Failure to reach this goal, may cause confusion in sexual
identity, the choice of an occupation, and the roles they perform as adults. Behaviourally,
early adolescents experiment with new ways of behaving, while middle adolescents involve
in risk-taking, which ends in late stage during which assessment of ones own risk taking
occurs (ReCAPP, 2003).During the period of adolescence, peers, are a source of influence
and support (Dacey and Travers, 1996)
Community service
Community service programs are generally, non-curriculum based, recognized by school,
may be compulsory or voluntary, and include activities that take place off school grounds or
within school. Some schools do not have service learning due to lack of time, lack of funding,
absence of coordinator, etc. (Spring, Grimm and Dietz, 2007)
Empathy
Davis (1983) views empathy as, a multidimensional phenomenon including four subscales-
perspective taking, fantasy, empathic concern and personal distress. (Hakansson,
2003)Empathy is among the ten core life skills, as enlisted by UNICEF, UNESCO and WHO,
as a part of social skills. Empathy is one of subset of Social Awareness which in turn is a
domain of Emotional Intelligence. (Goleman, 1995)
RATIONALE OF STUDY
Children attending urban schools are subjected to extreme competition from a very early age,
to qualify for admission into the best schools. (Report on system of education in India, 2006)
A significant increase in the problematic use of mobile phones (Bianchi and Phillips, 2005)
has led to, technological addiction, cause loneliness, anxiety, psychiatric and sleeping
disorder, depression and physical symptoms such as headache and earache. (Harenstam and
Hagberg, 2011) Currently, suicide is the third leading cause of death among youth aged
between 15-24 years (Heron et al, 2006)
Developing empathy, altruism and other humanitarian behaviours among the worlds
children, play a key role in the development of social understanding and positive social
behaviours (Staub, 1971) and reduce aggression and destructive tendencies. It can lead to a
focus on cooperation and concern for a larger community of human mankind (Eisenberg,
2002). Very few researchers have focused on, positive youth development and how to
promote empathy during adolescence, although, interest in it has started increasing
(Eisenberg et al, 2002)

Hatcher et al (1994) showed that empathy, coping skills and self-esteem may influence
the social and emotional loneliness of youth, who are at high risk for drop-out, delinquency
and other problems. McCarthy (1994) argues that short term SL experiences when conducted
appropriately provide elements of challenge and support that lead to changes in student
perceptions and a commitment to further service. (as in Bowman et al, 2010)
Although, research been carried out on, the effect of community service on empathy,
very few have studied about, students in current Indian background. So, the researcher
planned to find out the effectiveness of program on the Empathy level of Std. XI students.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Lipsitz, (1984) suggests that early adolescents require assistance to, deal with the
developmental challenges in, forming self-identity and involving in intimate relationships,
that can be promoted by participating in community service. Youngsters, need opportunities
to participate in groups of interconnected members to, develop a sense of connectedness and
productivity, begin making decisions from a less egocentric perspective, take on
responsibilities and master challenges. (Roth, 2000) A requirement to do service, can
introduce adolescents to civic lifeexperience, their capacity to help others and improve the
larger community (Jennings, 2002). Participation in service activities can provide reflective
material needed for process of identity exploration and identity development in adolescents.
(Youniss et al, 1999) As per studies. Community based, extracurricular activity foster a sense
of social relatedness and encourage teamwork whereby, youth are expected to fulfil certain
commitments to the group. (Hart et al, 2007)
NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The current research is needed due to the following gaps in existing literature as reviewed by
the researcher. 1) A striking fact is that research at middle adolescent level i.e. junior college
level appears to be a neglected field. One of the major reason for this might obviously be the
hectic HSC schedule. 2) While searching for relevant researches carried out at High school
level the researcher could locate only a handful of Indian high school level researches that
were partially relevant for this research. 3) Separate studies have proved that service learning
programs do improve empathy and social responsibility levels of adolescents but not on
Indian High school backgrounds.
Statement of problem
To find out the effectiveness of the program developed to awaken empathy in Std.
XIstudents, on their level ofEmpathic Concern,Perspective taking and Personal distress as
indicators of Empathy and on level of overall Empathy.

Objectives
1) To develop and implement the program foradolescents to awaken empathy in them.
2) To find the effectiveness of the program to awaken empathy on the level of Empathic
Concern in adolescents.
3) To find the effectiveness of the program to awaken empathy on the level of
Perspective Taking in adolescents.
4) To find the effectiveness of the program to awaken empathy on the level of Personal
Distressin adolescents.
5) To find the effectiveness of the program to awaken empathy on the level of Overall
empathyin adolescents.
6) To find the effectiveness of the program to awaken empathy on the level of Overall
empathy in adolescentBoys and Girls.
Research Questions
1) What program can be developed for adolescents to awaken their empathy?
2) What is the effectiveness of the program to awaken empathy on the level of Empathic
Concernin adolescents?
3) What is the effectiveness of the program to awaken empathy on the level of
Perspective Takingin adolescents?
4) What is the effectiveness of the program to awaken empathy on the level of Personal
Distressin adolescents?
5) What is the effectiveness of the program to awaken empathy on the level of Overall
Empathyin adolescents?
6) What is the effectiveness of the program to awaken empathy on the level of Overall
Empathy in adolescentBoys and Girls?
Null hypothesis
1) H01:A There will be no significant difference in the mean scores onEmpathic concern
of the experimental group before and after implementing the program.
H01: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains in Empathic
concern of the experimental group as compared to control group after implementing
the program.
2) H02: A There will be no significant difference in the mean scores on Perspective
Taking of the experimental group before and after implementing the program.

H02: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains

inPerspective Taking of the experimental group as compared to control group after
implementing the program.
3) H03: A There will be no significant difference in the mean scores on Personal Distress
H03: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains in Personal
Distress of the experimental group as compared to control group after implementing
the program.
4) H04: A There will be no significant difference in the mean scores on Overall Empathy
H04: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains in Overall
Empathy of the experimental group as compared to control group after implementing
the program.
5) H05: A There will be no significant difference in the mean scores on Overall Empathy
of Boys and Girls (separately) in the experimental group before and after
H05: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains in Overall
Empathy of boys and girls (separately) in the experimental group as compared to
control group after implementing the program.
OPERATONAL DEFINITIONS
1. Empathy:For this research, it is a skill to understand another persons needs and
feelings and taking an active interest in their concern in the Std. XIth students. The
indicators considered for this research are- empathic concern, perspective taking and
personal distress. Empathy is the ability to be aware of and understand how others
feel. (Baron, 2006)
2. Adolescence: For this Research, Adolescents are students studying inStd. XI whose
age group lies between 15-16 years.
3. Effectiveness: It is the difference in pre-test and post-test scores after implementation
of the program to awaken empathy and social responsibility in adolescents.
4. Awaken: For the current research awaken denotes to trigger or raise feeling of
empathy and sense of social responsibility in Std. XI adolescents.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To find the effectiveness of program on the Empathic Concern, Perspective Taking, Personal
Distress and Overall empathy level of Std. XIstudents (together and gender-wise), an

Experimental method was most suitable due to its quantitative approach.Two unmatched
group pre-test and post-test design was used to find the effectiveness of the program wherein,
the experimental and control group were randomly selected from existing divisions without
pairing. Test was conducted on the experimental and control group using the Davis'
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, 1980) scale. The effectiveness of the program
was studied on the levels of -Empathic Concern, Perspective Taking and Personal Distress, as
indicators of Empathy along with effectiveness on Overall empathy.
Assumptions
All the selected students will be undergoing the interactive program.2)The students will be
taking part in the program for a definite period.3) Some students may remain absent during
the program.4) Few students may be unable to complete the program.
Scope, limitations and delimitations
A) Scope: This program is applicable to all students who have completed their S.S.C and
enrolled in STD XI of any stream in Pune city, Maharashtra.
B) Limitations: The aspects like family background, IQ levels, motivation, interest, and
attention of students and motivation of mentor teachers are beyond the control of the
researcher. C) Delimitations: This research is delimited to Std. XI English medium students
of Science or Commerce stream, affiliated to HSC Board enrolled in urban Junior Colleges in
Pune City, Maharashtra only.
Population
The population is all Std. XI English medium students of any stream from co-ed Junior
Colleges affiliated to H.S.C Board Pune city of Maharashtra State.
Sample
The sample for research was randomly selected English medium students of Std. XI of a
Junior College in Pune city, Maharashtra. For this part of research study, random sampling
was employed to select students for experimental and control group.
The sample size was 70 students of Std. XI including35experimental group and 35 control
group.Sample had who hadroughly 50% each ofboysand girls.
Variables of present research study
A) Independent Variables: The community interaction program to awaken empathy in
adolescents, developed by the researcher.
B) Dependent Variables: The Scores on the post-test for each indicator and overall empathy.
C) Control Variable: Age of allStd. XIth students was between 15+ to 16 +years.

Procedure
Previous researches and researchers experience along with anti-social issues, mentioned in
daily newspapers had indicated a dire need to tackle anti-social situations throughout the
world. The program being extensive, involved permission challenges, safety issues and
financial requirements. So, Dr. Kalmadi Shamarao Junior College, Pune was selected to
conduct the program.The community interaction program was one of the many topics for
Environmental Education project, that was mandatory to all students. The program that was
developed by the researcher,was a group activity and involved mentoringof Std XI students
by teachers and guidance to planthe activities. The students had to conductthese activities
during their community service visits to schools for underprivileged.
Std. XIth students were divided into groups of 18-20 students and each group was
assigned a mentor teacher. Few groups were randomly selected to form experimental group
while others formed the control group. The control group wasnt an ideal control group as
those students performed another activity based on different topic, instead of community
service. Actual sample size was 95 but there was a sample loss due to change in divisions,
subjects, absenteeism for program and incomplete filling of tests. So, the sample available for
statistical analysis was 70. (35E+35C)
A student detail form and pre-test using IRI scale (Davis, 1980) was filled by students
in presence of mentor teachers. Orientation and sensitization of subjects was done for
appropriate mental and psychological approach during the visit. Discussion and planning of
content of fun/interactive sessions was done, i.e. conditions, age group and group activities
based on same. To encourage their creative ideas and imagination, plans were done by youth
under guidance of mentor. This included planning and conducting educational, recreational
games and activities for the primary school children, who come from low socio-economic
background.
Each group conducted two visits to a school for underprivileged in a term, to conduct
activities for the primary children. The schedule for the visit was planned as per the approval
of the school/organization. After each visit, thementors interactedwith theirgroup to discuss
challenges and modifications if any. At the end of program a post-test using same scale (IRI
by Davis, 1980) was filled by the experimental and control group.Youths active involvement
in community encourages growth in social life and other practice skills promoting reliance
and helping youth to better navigate society. (Brennan, 2008; asin McKay,2011)

Limitation of study
The control group wasnt an ideal control group as those students performed another activity
instead of community service, which could be the limitation of the study. Also, due to hectic
schedule all the scheduled visits werent possible that could be another limitation of study.
Data Collection Tool
For the given objective of this study, the data collection tool was a pre-test and post-test. This
was done using a shortened version of standardised Empathy scale,Davis' Interpersonal
Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, 1980) that measures Empathic Concern, Perspective
taking and Personal distress as indicatorsfor empathy. Researcher did not administer
Fantasy scale for the present study like Barr and Higgins-DAlessandro (2007).14 questions
together of three subscales are taken directly from Davis (1983). Participants were asked to
rate how well each item describes them on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (does not describe
me well) to 5 (describes me very well).The responses for positive oriented questions were
scored as A=0, B-1, C-2, D-3 and E=4. While negative oriented questions were scored in
reverse order. The Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was found to be 0.63 for 14 items.
IRI scale defines empathy as the reactions of one individual to the observed experiences
of another (Davis, 1983). The indicators for empathy as defined by IRI (Davis, 1983) are
given below.
a) Perspective Taking the tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of
view of others
b) Fantasy taps respondents' tendencies to transpose themselves imaginatively into the
feelings and actions of fictitious characters in books, movies, and plays
c) Empathic Concern assesses "other-oriented" feelings of sympathy and concern for
unfortunate others
d) Personal Distress measures "self-oriented" feelings of personal anxiety and unease
in tense interpersonal settings
For the present study, researcher felt that Perspective taking (PT), empathic concern(EC) and
personal distress (PD) were theindicators relevant to be studied for finding the effectiveness
of the community interaction program. Review of literature had revealed, that the Community
interaction program was expected to have a positive impact on the levels of PT, EC and PD
than Fantasy scale. Fantasy was an indicator that was non-relevant to present study, as its
level was not expected to increase by the community interaction program in the present
study. Hence, fantasy scale questions werent included in the actual scale used for the
research study.

Statistical Tools:
1. Mean: - To find out separately the average score of both sets of pre-test and the post-
test. It was also used to calculate the average gains in each indicator and overall
empathy of experimental and control group.
2. Standard Deviation: - To find out the deviations from mean in both sets of pre-test
and the post-test scores.
3. t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means -To find out the effectiveness of the program on
level of EC, PT, PD and Overall empathy in experimental and control group.
4. t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for all indicators- To compare the
gains in levels of EC, PT, PD and Overall empathy of experimental with that of the
control group.
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Data analysis and interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to the collected
information and determining the conclusions, significance, and implications of the findings.
After data collection, the responses filled by the subjects were tabulated, converted
into scores and analysed for testing the Null hypothesis.Mean, standard deviation and t-test
for paired two sample of means (pre-test and post-test), were calculated for the experimental
and control group, eachto determine whether difference was significant. t-test assuming
unmatched groups was calculatedfor experimental as compared to control group to find if the
difference in Empathy gains was significant. Empathy gains in Boys and Girls of the
experimental group was compared to gains in Boys and Girls of control group respectively.
The detailed scores and statistical values for experimental, control, comparison of gains in
levels of each indicator and levels of overall empathy of entire sample as well as gender-wise
sample, are given in the tables below.
Table No. 1 Descriptive statistics of experimental group for all indicators EC, PT and
PD
Indicator Test Mean SE SD Kurtosis Skewness
Empathic Pre-test 12.24 0.38 2.2 -0.58 -0.35
Concern Post-test 13.12 0.33 1.93 -0.51 0.33
Perspective Pre-test 11 0.46 2.7 -0.027 -0.22
Taking Post-test 12.94 0.34 1.98 -0.53 -0.11
Personal Pre-test 12.09 0.42 2.45 0.43 -0.29
Distress Post-test 13.38 0.33 1.92 -0.13 -0.23

Table No. 1 shows the calculated values of means (pre-test and post-test), standard deviations
and standard errors for difference in meansof levels in EC, PT and PD for the experimental
group. It shows a considerable increase in the mean of post-test than pre-test. The low value
of standard error indicates that extraneous variables were in control that denotes the
reliability of the process.
Table No. 2 Descriptive statistics for control group for all indicators, EC, PT and PD
Indicator Test Mean SE SD Kurtosis Skewness
Empathic Pre-test 12.12 0.36 2.13 -0.58 -0.2
Concern Post-test 12.85 0.41 2.4 -0.97 -0.19
Perspective Pre-test 11.06 0.47 2.72 -0.83 -0.027
Taking Post-test 11.47 0.42 2.48 0.17 -0.71
Personal Pre-test 12.29 0.49 2.87 -0.89 0.05
Distress Post-test 12.09 0.4 2.31 -0.61 -0.21
Table No. 2 shows the calculated values of means (pre-test and post-test), standard deviations
and standard errors for difference in meansof levels of EC, PT and PD for control group. It
shows an increase in the mean of post-test than pre-test in case of EC and PT, and a decrease
in means for PD. The low value of standard error indicates that extraneous variables were in
control thatdenotes the reliability of the process.
Table no.3: t-Test: Paired Two Sample for EC, PT and PD Means of Experimental
group
Pre-
Empathy Post-test Pearson P(T<=t) t Critical
test t Stat
Indicator Mean Correlation two-tail two-tail
mean
Empathic
12.2 13.2 0.4 2.59 0.014 2.03
Concern
Perspective
10.91 12.91 0.71 6.2 4.80E-07 2.03
Taking
Personal
12.14 13.4 0.41 3.09 0.004 2.03
Distress
Table No. 3 shows the calculated values of t-test for paired two sample for means (pre-test
and post-test of experimental group), correlation coefficient and t-critical value for
comparison of means in EC, PT and PD. It shows a significant difference between means of
EC, PT and PD.The higherdifference in means and t-test scores for PTindicates that the
program had a greater positive impact on Perspective Taking than on Personal Distress with
least impact on Empathic concern.

Table no.4:t-Test: Paired Two Sample for EC, PT and PD Means of Control group
Pre- Post- t
Empathy Pearson P(T<=t)
test test t Stat Critical
Indicator Correlation two-tail
mean Mean two-tail
Empathic
12.09 12.83 0.68 2.41 0.021 2.03
Concern
Perspective
11.11 11.54 0.23 0.79 0.44 2.03
Taking
Personal
12.31 12.11 0.32 -0.39 0.7 2.03
Distress
and post-test of control group), correlation coefficient and t-critical value for comparison of
means for EC, PT and PD. It shows a significant difference between means of EC, and no
significant difference between means of PT and PD.The positive difference in means and
greater t statistical value for EC indicates that the program (that was different for control
group) had a positive impact on Empathic Concern. A lower positive difference in means and
non-significant t-value for PT indicates a small positive impact on Perspective Taking. The
negative difference in means and t-test scores for PDindicates a negative impact on the
Personal Distress level.
Table no.5: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for EC, PT and PD
Mean of Mean of t
t P(T<=t)
Indicator Experimental Control Critical
Statistical two-tail
Gain Gain two-tail
Empathic
0.88 0.74 0.30 0.77 2.00
Concern
Perspective
1.94 0.41 2.36 0.02 2.01
Taking
Personal
1.29 -0.21 2.24 0.028 2.00
Distress
Table no. 5 shows the values for t-test assuming unequal variances for EC, PT and PD in
Experimental and Control group. Apositive difference in means of EC gains between two
groups indicatedslightly greater impact on EC level of experimental group whichwas non-
significant.A higher positive difference in means of PD gains between two groups indicated a
greater impact of program on PD level of experimental group that was significant. A positive
difference in means of PT gains between two groups indicated a positive impact of program
on PT level of experimental group that was significant.

Table no. 6: t-Test: Paired Two Sample for OE means of Experimental and Control
group
Pre- Post-
Pearson t P(T<=t) t Critical
test test
Correlation Statistical two-tail two-tail
Groups Mean Mean
1.36E-
35.26 39.51 0.76 7.41 2.03
Experimental 08
Control 35.51 36.49 0.49 0.999 0.32 2.03
and post-test of experimental group and control group) of Empathy (sum of all indicator
scores), correlation coefficient and t-critical value for comparison of means of Overall
Empathy. It shows a significant difference between pre-test and Post-test means of Empathy
in experimental group. There is a positive difference in means of control group which is not
significant yet indicative of some positive impact of alternate program on Control group. The
higher difference in means and t-test scores for experimental group isindicative of a positive
impact of the program on their Overall Empathy level.
Table no. 7: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for OE
Control Experimental P(T<=t) t Critical
t Stat
group Mean group Mean two-tail two-tail
0.97 4.26 2.91 0.00522 2.01
Table no. 7 shows the values for t-test assuming unequal variances for OE (sum of all
indicators) in Experimental and Control group. A high positive difference in means for OE
between two groups indicates a positive impact of program on OE level of experimental
group as compared to control group that was significant.
Table no. 8: t-Test: Paired Two Sample for OE means of Boys and Girls
Post- t
Pre-test Pearson P(T<=t)
Gender test t Stat Critical
Mean Correlation two-tail
Mean two-tail
7.59E-
Boys 34.29 39.04 0.66 6.71 2.07
07
Girls 37.36 40.55 0.92 3.38 0.007 2.23
and post-test of experimental group and control group) of OE (sum of all indicator scores),
correlation coefficient and t-critical value for comparison of means for OE in boys and girls.
It shows a significant difference between pre-test and post-test means of OE in boys and girls
of experimental group. The higher difference in means and t-test scores for boys than girls
wasindicative of a greater impact of the program on the OE level in boys.

Table no. 9: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances for OE in Boys and Girls
Experimental Control t P(T<=t) two- t Critical
Gender
gain gain Statistical tail two-tail
Boys 4.75 1.33 2.33 0.028 2.05
Girls 3.18 0.59 1.46 0.156 2.05
Table no. 9 shows the values for t-test assuming unequal variances for OE (sum of all
indicators) in Boys and Girls of Experimental and Control group. A positive difference in
means for OE between two groups indicates a positive impact of program on OE level of
Boys and girls experimental group. Significant difference is observed between gains in OE
level ofBoys in experimental group. Non-significant difference can be observed in OE level
of Girls in experimental group.
Reliability and Validity of IRI Scale (Davis, 1980)
The original scale has reported following values for Internal reliability: s=.70 to .78, and for
Test-retest reliability (60 to 75 days): Correlations -Males: between .61 and .79 and Females:
between .62 and .81Additional Studies Reporting Validity Evidence: The IRI is widely used
in a variety of populations and was validated in several languages. The IRI was chosen in the
General Social Survey (GSS), a nationally representative sample of American adults, for two
years. (Konrath, 2013, in press)The scale was extensively validated and checked for
reliability, and cited by more than 31 researches. Researcher took the opinion of experts in
the field to reconfirm the selection of scale and relevance of questions for the present
study.The Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was found to be 0.63 for 14 items.
Testing of Null hypothesis
Table no.10 Values of t statistical and t critical for EC, PT, PD and OE
Indicators Type of Group t t Critical two-
Statistical tail
Empathic Experimental
2.59 2.03
Concern group
Comparison of
0.30 2.00
gains
Perspective Experimental
6.02 2.03
Taking group
Comparison of
2.36 2.01
gains
Personal Distress Experimental
3.09 2.03
group
Comparison of
2.24 2.00
gains
Overall Experimental
7.41 2.03
Empathy group
Comparison of
2.91 2.01
gains
Boys Experimental 6.71 2.07

group
Comparison of
2.33 2.05
gains
Girls Experimental
3.38 2.23
group
Comparison of
1.46 2.05
gains
Table no. 10 shows the values of t-statistical and t-critical for EC,PD, PT and OE in
experimental group and comparison of gains in their levels in both groups.
1) H01: A There will be no significant difference in the mean scores on Empathic
concern of the experimental group before and after implementing the program.
H01: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains in Empathic
concern of the experimental group as compared to control group after implementing
the program.
It can be observed that t-statistical > t-critical value (two-tail) which indicates a
significant difference in both means scores for Empathic Concern of the experimental
group.
H01: A rejected as t stat < t critical. (2.59> 2.03)
Significant difference between pre-test and post-test means for Empathic Concern in
experimental group.
It can be observed that t-statistical < t-critical value (two-tail) which indicates a non-
significant difference in gains for Empathic Concern between experimental and
control group.
H01: B retained as t stat < t critical. (0.3 < 2)
No significant difference in mean scores of gains in Empathic Concern between
experimental and control group.
2) H02: A There will be no significant difference in the mean scores on PT of the
experimental group before and after implementing the program.
H02: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains in PT of the
experimental group as compared to control group after implementing the program.
It can be observed that t-statistical >t-critical value (two-tail) which indicates a
significant difference in both means scores for PT of the experimental group.
H02: A rejected as t stat > t critical. (6.02 > 2.03)
Significant difference between pre-test and post-test means for PT in experimental
group.

significant difference in gains for Perspective Taking between experimental and
control group.
H02: B rejected as t stat > t critical. (2.36 > 2.01)
Significant difference in mean scores of gains in PT between experimental and control
group.
3) H03: A There will be no significant difference in the mean scores on PD of the
H03: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains in PD of the
experimental group as compared to control group after implementing the program.
It can be observed that t-statistical >t-critical value (two-tail) which indicates a
significant difference in both means scores for PD of the experimental group.
H03: A rejected as t stat > t critical. (2.24 > 2)
Significant difference between pre-test and post-test means for PD in experimental
group.
significant difference in gains for PD between experimental and control group.
H03: B rejected as t stat > t critical. (3.09 > 2.03)
Significant difference in mean scores of gains in PD between experimental and
control group.
4) H04: A There will be no significant difference in the mean scores on OE of the
H04: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains in OE of
the experimental group as compared to control group after implementing the program.
significant difference a significant difference in both means scores for OE of the
experimental group.
H04: A rejected as t stat > t critical. (7.41> 2.03)
Significant difference between pre-test and post-test means for OE in experimental
group.
significant difference in gains for OE between experimental and control group.
H04: B rejected as t stat > t critical. (2.91> 2.01)

Significant difference in mean scores of gains in OEbetween experimental and control

group.
5) H05: A There will be no significant difference in the meansof Boys and Girls scores
(respectively) on OE of the experimental group before and after implementing the
program.
H05: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains in OE of
boys and girls (respectively) of experimental group as compared to control group after
significant difference a significant difference in both means scores for OE of the
experimental group.
H05: A rejected as t stat > t critical. (Boys-6.71 > 2.07 and Girls-3.38 > 2.23)
Significant difference between pre-test and post-test means for OE in Boys and Girls
of the experimental group.
significant difference in gains for OE between Boys in experimental and control
group.
H05: B rejected as t stat > t critical. (Boys-2.33 > 2.05)
H05: B retained for Girls (1.48 < 2.05)
Significant difference in mean scores of gains in OEin Boys of experimental group as
compared to control.
No Significant difference in mean scores of gains in OE in Girls of experimental
group as compared to control.
General Observations
After discussing with mentor teachers, it was found that most of the students could respond to
all the questions. It was brought to notice that some students tried to peep into the other
students sheet to simply follow the same. Few students did ask forclarification of few
statements from the mentor. One or two student had to be given the form again as they had
realized that they responded the reverse way than they wanted to. Sample was more but few
students filled the tests incompletely or marked at multiple places thereby leading to some
sample loss at data entry stage, besides the sample loss at the data collection stage.
A striking observation was that, of a disinterest in the class,as many students were
reluctant to fill the scales. This may be due to Std. XI students being pre-occupied in

coaching classes and pressurized due to same. Especially, during the period when post-test
was conducted, the Std. XI students had enrolled in classes for next level which had
commenced by then.
Moreover, on knowing that these scores wouldnt be fetching them marks, their
interest and seriousness reduced further. This might have affected the results of post-test
since,difference between means although significant,was less than expected. Also, the overall
scores showed lot of variations in differences between pre-test and post-test scores of each
indicator.The difference in scoresofthe control group seemed to be more negative than that of
experimental; there has been an increase in scores in few cases.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A paired sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of the program on students
mean scores followed by a t-test assuming unequal variances to find out whether the gains in
indicators of Experimental group than control group were significant. The community
interaction program did improve students levels of EC, PD and PT, and OE that was
indicated by the mean and t-test scores for the indicators. There was a significant difference
between mean scores of gains in PD and PT of the experimental group as compared to control
group, after implementing the Community interaction program. There was no significant
difference between mean scores of pre-test and post-test of the experimental group for EC
after the program.
Empathic Concern:
A) EC [Pre-test M1 =12.2, SD = 2.2, Post-test M2 = 13.2, SD = 1.93, t = 2.59]
Since the t-statistical > t-critical (2.59> 2.03) there was a Significant difference between
pre-test and post-test means for EC in experimental group. It implies that there was an
improvement in scores of EC level in post-test. Significant difference between pre-test
and post-test means for EC in control group too implies that there was an improvement
in scores of EC level in post-test.
B) EC [Experimental gain=0.88, Control gain= 0.74, SD = 1.93, t = 0.30]
Since the t-statistical < t-critical (0.30 < 2.00) for t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming
Unequal Variances for EC, there was No significant difference in mean scores of gains in
EC between experimental and control group. No significant difference between mean
scores indicates that impact of program on the students EC level wasnt as expected. The
mean for EC of experimental group was greater than mean for control group.It denotes a
greaterincrease in the EC levelof experimental group than control group. Less than
expected value, implies that the program did have some positive impact on EC.
C) An unexpected significant difference between means of EC scores of the control

group indicated a positive impact of alternate program.
Perspective Taking:
A) PT [Pre-test M1 =10.91, SD = 2.71, Post-test M2 = 12.91, SD = 1.98, t = 6.20]
Since the t-statistical > t-critical (6.02 > 2.03) there was a Significant difference between
pre-test and post-test means for PT in experimental group. This implies that there was an
improvement in scores of PT level in post-test.
B) PT [Experimental gain=1.94, Control gain = 0.41, SD = 1.93, t = 2.36]
Since the t-statistical > t-critical (2.36 > 2.01) it indicated that there was a significant
difference in mean scores of gains in PT between experimental and control group.
Significant difference between mean scores implies that program had a positive impact
on the students PT level as expected.
Personal Distress:
A) PD [Pre-test M1 =12.14, SD = 2.45, Post-test M2 = 13.4, SD = 1.92, t = 3.09]
pre-test and post-test means for PD in experimental group. This implies that there was an
improvement in scores of PD level in post-test.
B) PD [Experimental gain=1.29, Control gain = -- 0.21, SD = 1.93, t = 2.24]
Since the t-statistical > t-critical (2.24> 2.01) it indicated that there was a significant
difference in mean scores of gains in PD between experimental and control group.
Significant difference between mean scores implies that program did have a positive
impact on the students PD level as expected.
Overall Empathy level
A) OE [Pre-test M1 =35.26, Post-test M2 = 39.51, t = 7.41]
pre-test and post-test means for OE in experimental group. This implies that there was an
improvement in scores of OE level in post-test.
B) OE [Experimental gain= 4.26, Control gain = 0.97, t = 2.91]
Since the t-statistical > t-critical (2.91 > 2.01), it indicates that there was a significant
difference in the means for gains in OE of experimental group as compared to control
group.Significant difference between mean scores implies that program had greater
positive impact on the studentsOE level of experimental group than the control group as
expected.

Overall Empathy in Boys and Girls

A) OE [Pre-test M1 =35.26, Post-test M2 = 39.51, t boys = 6.71, t girls =3.38]
Since the t stat > t critical (Boys-6.71 > 2.07 and Girls-3.38 > 2.23),there was a
significant difference between pre-test and post-test means for OE in Boys and Girls of
the experimental group. Significant difference between pre-test and post-test means for
OE in experimental group. This implies that there was an improvement in scores of OE
level in post-test.
B) OE [Experimental gain= 4.26, Control gain = 0.97, t boys = 2.33, t girls =1.48]
Since the t-statistical > t-critical (2.33 > 2.05), it indicates that there was a Significant
difference in mean scores of gains in OE in Boys of experimental group as compared to
control. This implies that program had greater positive impact on the OE level of Boys in
the experimental group than the control group as expected.
Since the t-statistical < t-critical (1.48 < 2.05), it indicates that there was no significant
difference in mean scores of gains in OE in Girls of experimental group as compared to
control. This implies that program had lesser positive impact on the OE level of girls in
the experimental group than the control group that wasnt expected.
CONCLUSION AND INTERPRETATIONS
There was seen an improved performance from pre-test to Post-test scores of the
experimental group for all three indicators.
The Community interaction program increased the level of EC in both groups, and had a
negligible positive effect on the EC level of experimental group than control group.
The Community interaction program increased the level of PT in experimental group,
and had a significant positive effect on the PT level of experimental group than control
group.
The Community interaction program increased the level of PD in experimental group,
and had a significantly positive effect on the PD level of experimental group than control
group.
The Community interaction program increased the level of OE in experimental group,
and had a significantly positive effect on the OE level of experimental group than control
group.
The Community interaction program increased the level of OE in Boys and Girls of the
experimental group, and had a significantly positive effect on the OE level of boys in

experimental group than control group, while a negligible positive effect on the OE level
of girls in experimental group than control group.
There was an improved performance seen from pre-test to post-test scores for EC
indicator in Control group. There was no improvement in performance from pre-test to
post-test scores for PDand PT in the Control group.
There was an improvement in the OE level of the students in experimental group. The
mean, SD and t-test values are indicative positive effect of a program on students PT
and PD level. There was a positive effect of program on EC level of experimental group
which was less than expected.
Students attitude may have been influenced by factors such as school environment, age,
maturation, lack of motivation, teachers teaching style, etc. which affects their response.
The SD obtained in the pre-test and post-test showed that, the post-test scores were more
closely dispersed from the mean as compared to the pre-test scores in the Experimental
group than the control group. (as observed from table no. 1 and 2)
Thus, there was an improvement in Overall Empathy level of Experimental group as
compared to control group after the implementation of the Community Interaction
Program. So, it can be concluded that the community interaction program had a positive
effect on the overall empathy level of the participants as was seen due to life-skill
training by Yadav and Iqbal (2009).
Program evaluation results have shown that schools where students are involved in
programs designed to increase empathy and create "caring communities" have higher
scores than comparison schools on measures of higher-order reading comprehension
(Kohn, 1991).
SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Educators should take up Research in areas of development in empathy and social
responsibility in adolescents. Especially, the faculty at +2 level can take this as a challenge
and conduct more research on the topic. Students and teachers must be motivated to be a part
in community activities whole-heartedly during Research. Very few researchers have focused
on positive youth development and how to promote empathy during adolescence although
interest in it has started increasing (Eisenberg et al, 2002)
More Research needs to be done in the following areas at Junior College level:
To enhance the students empathy and social responsibility level.
To conduct such similar programs for adolescents between 14-20 years age group and
study the effectiveness on their empathy and social responsibility level.

To study effects on other indicators of empathy and social responsibility in adolescents

To conduct a longitudinal study of such service activities on the empathy and social
responsibility level of the youth.
To develop varied programs to enhance empathy and social responsibility level in
youth.
Probably, a combination of experiential learning along with community service activities for
varied target groups could be used for greater impact on youth minds.
Acknowledgements
My sincere gratitude towards the management, Principal and the entire staff of Dr. Kalmadi
Shamarao Junior College for their co-operation and encouragement. Our whole-hearted
appreciation to Dr. Naik for statistical help and support.
REFERENCES
Barr. J., Higgins-D' Alessandro. A. (2007). Adolescent empathy and prosocial behaviour in the
multidimensional context of school culture. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168, 2, 231-
250.
Felt. L. J. (2011). The origin of everything: Empathy in Theory and Practice. Unpublished
manuscript.
Furman. N., Sibthorp J. (2014). The development of prosocial behaviour in Adolescents: A mixed
methods study from NOLS. Journal of experiential education, 37, 2, 160-175. Hakansson.
J. and Adviser-Henry Montgomery (2003). Exploring the phenomenon of Empathy,
Stockholm University. 91-7265-602-6.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/03/13/teens-and-technology-2013
McDonald. N. M. and Messinger. D. S. (2011). The development of empathy: How, When, and Why?
http://www.psy.miami.edu
McKay. Cassandra. (2011). The resilient Community: Implications for out of school programming.
Child Adolescence and Social Work Journal, 28,357-373.
NCERT and UN population Fund (2015). Adolescent Education Programme (AEP)
file:///F:/printpurpose/AboutAdolescenceEducationProgramme(AEP)AdolescenceEducationP
rogramme.html
O'Neill. N. (2012). Promising practices for personal and social responsibility. Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Ponder. J., Vander, Veldt, Genell, Lewis-Ferell. (2011). Citizenship, Curriculum and critical thinking
beyond the four walls of the Classroom: Linking the academic content with service learning.
Teacher Education Quarterly.
Reed. V. A, Jernstedt. G. C, Hawley. J. K. (2005). Effects of a small-scale, very short-term service-
learning experience on college students. Journal of Adolescence,28,3,359-368.
Reinders. H., Youniss. J. (2005). School-Based Required Community Service and Civic
development in Adolescents. Applied developmental Science, Vol.10, 2-12.
Wood. D, Larson. W. R, Brown. J. R. (2009). How Adolescents come to see themselves as more
responsible through participation in youth programs. Child development, 80, 1, 295-309.

Archu Karandikar Tilak College

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Archu Karandikar Tilak College

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/ MRS. ARCHANA VEDEYAR & DR.

SMITA PHATAK (4412-4432)

EFFECTIVENESS OF A PROGRAM TO AWAKEN EMPATHY IN ADOLESCENTS

Mrs. Archana Vadeyar1 & Smita Phatak2, Ph. D.

R4Z Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4412

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4413

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4414

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4415

H02: B There will be no significant difference in the mean scores of gains

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4416

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4417

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4418

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4419

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4420

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4421

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4422

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4423

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4424

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4425

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4426

Significant difference in mean scores of gains in OEbetween experimental and control

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4427

C) An unexpected significant difference between means of EC scores of the control

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4429

Overall Empathy in Boys and Girls

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4430

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4431

To study effects on other indicators of empathy and social responsibility in adolescents

FEB-MAR, 2017, VOL. 4/20 www.srjis.com Page 4432

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi